Australia would not be a better place if we had a Bill of Rights. Challenging state power can be done both informally, fluctuating methods of challenging government decisions by persons affected by the decisions and processes, and formally, methods that are more permanent than the informal methods of challenging government decisions. In both the Mabo and Wik cases state power was challenged formally through the High Court of Australia. There are a variety of advantages and disadvantages both statutory and constitutional for Australia to enact an Australian Bill of Rights but the disadvantages clearly outweigh the advantages hence Australia would be a better place without a bill of rights.
Informal means of challenging state powers are fluctuating methods of challenging government decisions by persons affected by the decisions and processes. "Informal" signifies a lack of permanence and consistency in the person or organisation approached to aid the challenge. The media have become one of the great powers in any democratic form of government and in particular a major informal way of challenging state power. The power of the media is based on their ability to provide wide access to information in an extremely fast time. The media, who are less accountable to society and therefore less concerned with standards than the government, are able to use their electorate-informing power to challenge and question the abuse of state power. Members of Parliament are the elected representatives of society. Their role is to represent the interests and legal concerns of their electorate. In the event of a problem relating to the use of state power, an individual will often ask their member for assistance. Provided the use of the members" power does not harm their political aspirations, the member may use government contacts and political power to have the problem resolved in favour of the individual challenging the state power.